3 ms·
That's the main problem with calling Maybe 'better'. If you don't have static type checking then either you implement it just for Maybe or you end up with the s
by yew 13y ago
That's the main problem with calling Maybe 'better'. If you don't have static type checking then either you implement it just for Maybe or you end up with the same sorts of problems as you had before.
Making types non-Nullable by default is nice, though. Even in a dynamic language you can have a syntactic distinction to make interfaces more explicit.
- cantankerous 13y agoTrue. I think it's also a covert argument for static type checking, though ;-).
- yew 13y agoGive me a statically typed Python and a type system that can handle external hardware poking around in its memory and I'm in ;) I'm sort of a fan of Haskell already, to tell you the truth.
- dllthomas 13y ago> Give me a statically typed Python Not sure that's so far from Haskell, really... :-P > and a type system that can handle external hardware poking around in its memory Can it be in isolated places? That's doable...
- yew 13y agoNot sure that's so far from Haskell, really... :-P Maybe it's my lack of experience talking. Haskell feels heavier in a lot of places. I think the focus on compilation in the backend is almost a downside here, too. Can it be in isolated places? That's doable... Depends on the application. There's a lot of hardware out there that does really weird stuff. There's some interesting work in Haskell-space (eg Atom) but I don't know how comprehensively mature it is.
- merijnv 13y agoI actually started designing statically typed Python, since it seemed a fun exercise. Halfway in I realised I was effectively redesigning Haskell with slightly different syntax and stopped.